Find a Lawyer

RIFAT SAEED DAR versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHLU, ADVOCATE

Section 41 (4) of the Advocate filed a professional misconduct through the Advocate Complaint stating that it had received the excuse fee and another specific amount for submission to the court. He told the Dispensary Committee that he would return. The specific amount for the next date but he failed to return the same matter was repeatedly sent to the Council Tribunal, which issued a notice to the Advocate, who promised to return the money by the next date, but he would return the next date and his Such payment did not appear on the due dates. Advocate mismanagement in such payment was acknowledged and the same was maintained before the Dispensary Committee, while the Bar Council Advocate Tribunal also paid the amount accordingly. I had no intention of committing the illegal and fraudulent complaint from the complainant Such conduct was obtained with no right to continue the practice of the Bar Council, directing the removal of the Advocate from practice under Section 41 (1), any court under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 , The tribunal or the authority complainant was barred from appearing as an advocate and a lawyer's request to file a criminal case against the advocate with the police. Senior Superintendent Complainant for Production before Police Pakistan, top advocate family court from Abdul Hakim lawyer